Position Paper – Part Three Name: Meghan Putnam Instructions: Please use this form as an organizer for writing your portion of your group position paper. You will be writing the third part of the paper. You should clearly and thoroughly document the results of your interviews regarding the final solution that your group has decided on to solve the problem that you are addressing. You may use your own research and the research from other members of your group to address any objections or concerns that were raised by those interviewed. Be sure to follow the MLA citation format that you used when completing your JRP. Your portion of the paper should be a minimum of one page in length. V. We interviewed individuals to see what their response would be to my plan. Their responses are as follows. Ms. Freund interviewed her parents on February 20, 2011. Mrs. Edie Freund stated, “I think that one successful step is breathalyzers being implemented in vehicles, but that or higher fines or stricter incarcerations should be better implemented because innocent people are being killed because of the driver's neglect. People with drinking problems make the situation worse by getting behind the wheel. The penalties were reasonable and all possible solutions seemed to be covered. Maybe too many penalties for too many different situations, so penalties could be confusing for a particular situation.” She also interviewed her father, Mr. John Freund. He quoted, “Breathalyzers should be the first punishment before jail. Everyone makes one mistake and it is the repeat offenders that should go to jail and get the higher fines. Too many people sneak through the system and courts without the proper punishment, especially in serious cases. Drunk drivers should not be allowed in cars in the first place.” Mrs. Lopez interviewed two other people on February 21, 2011. Her first interviewer, Curtis Thorngood, told Ms. Lopez, “He believed that our solution to the plan was good and effective. However, he thought that the use of the breathalyzer should be mandated after the first offense because if they have a drinking problem once, it is likely for the problem to happen again. Also, after the second offense, the license should be suspended for one year.” Her other interviewer, Mark Adams, responded with, “He feels that first time offenders that blow between .08-.10 should attend alcohol awareness programs and pay a fine. If they blow between .10-.14, they should spend a week in jail. Anything above .15, then they should spend 60 days in jail. He feels people make mistakes and take a couple drinks at dinner. They shouldn't be punished so harshly if they are barely at the limit. Once it goes beyond, then you should throw the book at them.” Ms. Putnam interviewed Cecelia Putnam on February 22, 2011, who thought, “This was a nice start to a solution. I like how this solution addressed different levels of consequences for first time offenders and repeat offenders. I think that after the 3rd DUI they should not get their license back, because they should have learned their lesson already. Ms. Putnam also interviewed Kyle Reed who liked this solution as well. “I think that after the third offense their license should be taken away for good. Also, if an intoxicated driver kills someone, even if it’s their first offense, they should never be able to drive again.” Ms. Thomas interviewed her relatives on February 20, 2011. Her mother, Laura Thomas said, “I thought the solution was pretty good although I’m somewhat hesitant on if it could work because some people get away with it as it is. I thought it was good that DUI offenses were penalized by the amount and in levels. For example, how each penalty increases if there are repeat offenses? The reason behind that is people will see stronger, more persistent punishments rather than the same punishment for a repeat offense. I also liked the idea of detaining someone under the influence until they have sobered up. I think it’s a great way to keep already caught and drunk people off the roads.” Ms. Thomas also interviewed her sister, Jennifer Thomas. Her sister exclaimed, “I agreed with all of the points presented. I think these regulations are more suiting because she thinks it will target the problem drinkers. I believe it could work because I know someone who had problems with drinking and ended up killing a little boy under the influence. ‘If she had had mandatory counseling, her drinking problem could have been taken care of after her second DUI preventing the death of the child.’ I also think this may trigger realization in some people. The realization would be driving under the influence is bad, and the penalties are severe because the crime is severe. I also agree that detaining people until they are sober is a good idea because it could prevent the person from harming himself, or other innocent people around him. I was concerned about where to put people in cases of huge party scenarios, like New Years. I was also concerned, like Laura Thomas, that people might be able to weed through the system and continually get offenses.” VI. Our answers, based on our research, to their objections and concerns are: Ms. Freund thinks, “In order for the bill to be successful, penalties have to be strongly implemented and the court systems need to become more strict with cases and penalizing offenders. Then, the stricter penalties can become more successful because people will notice that penalties are being enforced and drunk driving only causes problems and it will lead to fines and jail. Jail sentences and fines could be changed and altered to certain situations, or be more general to prevent overpopulation in jails and make a better influence on the offender. Breathalyzers seem to be the best, safest solution to start with because the prevent the offender from driving under the influence in the first place. After the interviews, it may be better to implement breathalyzers on the first offense and then continue with jail sentences and fines for repeat offenders.” Ms. Lopez said, “I agree with Mark and we should make limits to their punishments. Depending on what they blow should also depend on their punishments. However, after their first offense then they should spend 6 months in jail and attend AA meetings. I also agree with Curtis and we should suspend driver's licenses that have been pulled over more than once for a DUI. They shouldn't have the privilege of attaining a license if they are out there risking their life as well as other innocent lives.” Ms. Putnam stated, “I agree with Mrs. Putnam and Mr. Reed in that after the 3rd offense they should have their license revoked without question. After the 3rd offense the said persons obviously have some kind of problem that doesn't deserve any more chances to straighten up. They don't seem to want to make an effort to better them selves and avoid risking other lives. I agree with Mr. Reed about an offender having killed an innocent human then they should be neglected of their right to drive again. Driving is a privilege that not all persons can handle the responsibilities. Likewise, drinking is also a privilege that of-age people can enjoy, but that also comes with responsibilities and the two combined can't be handled by anyone. It's not safe to themselves or others. Ms. Thomas thinks, “Laura Thomas was concerned about my solution will work for all drunk driving cases. There will be people who never actually get caught because there is no way to catch everyone. The stricter penalties should reduce those cases because the threat the penalties could cause to a persons' life. For example, a person who receives a hefty fine will be economically affected. That could stop them from acting irresponsibly and driving under the influence. Both people interviewed were concerned that people may be able to weed through the system. The point of the stricter penalties is to prevent DUIs, and also identify problem drinkers. In an article used earlier, the official suggested that part of the problem was the inability to identify problem drinkers and address their problems. The required counseling will address the problem drinkers as well as teach people who do not have a problem to exercise caution and responsibility when drinking. Ms.Thomas also brought up the fact that there are party times in which it may cause problems detaining people. In these instances, overnight jails can be prepared for such measures as they are now, and hopefully, with stricter penalties, people will think twice before driving under the influence.”
Name: Meghan Putnam
Instructions: Please use this form as an organizer for writing your portion of your group position paper. You will be writing the third part of the paper. You should clearly and thoroughly document the results of your interviews regarding the final solution that your group has decided on to solve the problem that you are addressing. You may use your own research and the research from other members of your group to address any objections or concerns that were raised by those interviewed. Be sure to follow the MLA citation format that you used when completing your JRP. Your portion of the paper should be a minimum of one page in length.
V. We interviewed individuals to see what their response would be to my plan. Their responses are as follows.
Ms. Freund interviewed her parents on February 20, 2011. Mrs. Edie Freund stated, “I think that one successful step is breathalyzers being implemented in vehicles, but that or higher fines or stricter incarcerations should be better implemented because innocent people are being killed because of the driver's neglect. People with drinking problems make the situation worse by getting behind the wheel. The penalties were reasonable and all possible solutions seemed to be covered. Maybe too many penalties for too many different situations, so penalties could be confusing for a particular situation.” She also interviewed her father, Mr. John Freund. He quoted, “Breathalyzers should be the first punishment before jail. Everyone makes one mistake and it is the repeat offenders that should go to jail and get the higher fines. Too many people sneak through the system and courts without the proper punishment, especially in serious cases. Drunk drivers should not be allowed in cars in the first place.” Mrs. Lopez interviewed two other people on February 21, 2011. Her first interviewer, Curtis Thorngood, told Ms. Lopez, “He believed that our solution to the plan was good and effective. However, he thought that the use of the breathalyzer should be mandated after the first offense because if they have a drinking problem once, it is likely for the problem to happen again. Also, after the second offense, the license should be suspended for one year.” Her other interviewer, Mark Adams, responded with, “He feels that first time offenders that blow between .08-.10 should attend alcohol awareness programs and pay a fine. If they blow between .10-.14, they should spend a week in jail. Anything above .15, then they should spend 60 days in jail. He feels people make mistakes and take a couple drinks at dinner. They shouldn't be punished so harshly if they are barely at the limit. Once it goes beyond, then you should throw the book at them.” Ms. Putnam interviewed Cecelia Putnam on February 22, 2011, who thought, “This was a nice start to a solution. I like how this solution addressed different levels of consequences for first time offenders and repeat offenders. I think that after the 3rd DUI they should not get their license back, because they should have learned their lesson already. Ms. Putnam also interviewed Kyle Reed who liked this solution as well. “I think that after the third offense their license should be taken away for good. Also, if an intoxicated driver kills someone, even if it’s their first offense, they should never be able to drive again.” Ms. Thomas interviewed her relatives on February 20, 2011. Her mother, Laura Thomas said, “I thought the solution was pretty good although I’m somewhat hesitant on if it could work because some people get away with it as it is. I thought it was good that DUI offenses were penalized by the amount and in levels. For example, how each penalty increases if there are repeat offenses? The reason behind that is people will see stronger, more persistent punishments rather than the same punishment for a repeat offense. I also liked the idea of detaining someone under the influence until they have sobered up. I think it’s a great way to keep already caught and drunk people off the roads.” Ms. Thomas also interviewed her sister, Jennifer Thomas. Her sister exclaimed, “I agreed with all of the points presented. I think these regulations are more suiting because she thinks it will target the problem drinkers. I believe it could work because I know someone who had problems with drinking and ended up killing a little boy under the influence. ‘If she had had mandatory counseling, her drinking problem could have been taken care of after her second DUI preventing the death of the child.’ I also think this may trigger realization in some people. The realization would be driving under the influence is bad, and the penalties are severe because the crime is severe. I also agree that detaining people until they are sober is a good idea because it could prevent the person from harming himself, or other innocent people around him. I was concerned about where to put people in cases of huge party scenarios, like New Years. I was also concerned, like Laura Thomas, that people might be able to weed through the system and continually get offenses.”
VI. Our answers, based on our research, to their objections and concerns are:
Ms. Freund thinks, “In order for the bill to be successful, penalties have to be strongly implemented and the court systems need to become more strict with cases and penalizing offenders. Then, the stricter penalties can become more successful because people will notice that penalties are being enforced and drunk driving only causes problems and it will lead to fines and jail. Jail sentences and fines could be changed and altered to certain situations, or be more general to prevent overpopulation in jails and make a better influence on the offender. Breathalyzers seem to be the best, safest solution to start with because the prevent the offender from driving under the influence in the first place. After the interviews, it may be better to implement breathalyzers on the first offense and then continue with jail sentences and fines for repeat offenders.” Ms. Lopez said, “I agree with Mark and we should make limits to their punishments. Depending on what they blow should also depend on their punishments. However, after their first offense then they should spend 6 months in jail and attend AA meetings. I also agree with Curtis and we should suspend driver's licenses that have been pulled over more than once for a DUI. They shouldn't have the privilege of attaining a license if they are out there risking their life as well as other innocent lives.” Ms. Putnam stated, “I agree with Mrs. Putnam and Mr. Reed in that after the 3rd offense they should have their license revoked without question. After the 3rd offense the said persons obviously have some kind of problem that doesn't deserve any more chances to straighten up. They don't seem to want to make an effort to better them selves and avoid risking other lives. I agree with Mr. Reed about an offender having killed an innocent human then they should be neglected of their right to drive again. Driving is a privilege that not all persons can handle the responsibilities. Likewise, drinking is also a privilege that of-age people can enjoy, but that also comes with responsibilities and the two combined can't be handled by anyone. It's not safe to themselves or others. Ms. Thomas thinks, “Laura Thomas was concerned about my solution will work for all drunk driving cases. There will be people who never actually get caught because there is no way to catch everyone. The stricter penalties should reduce those cases because the threat the penalties could cause to a persons' life. For example, a person who receives a hefty fine will be economically affected. That could stop them from acting irresponsibly and driving under the influence. Both people interviewed were concerned that people may be able to weed through the system. The point of the stricter penalties is to prevent DUIs, and also identify problem drinkers. In an article used earlier, the official suggested that part of the problem was the inability to identify problem drinkers and address their problems. The required counseling will address the problem drinkers as well as teach people who do not have a problem to exercise caution and responsibility when drinking. Ms.Thomas also brought up the fact that there are party times in which it may cause problems detaining people. In these instances, overnight jails can be prepared for such measures as they are now, and hopefully, with stricter penalties, people will think twice before driving under the influence.”